Research Seminar

Given that CSU has closed for the entirety of Wednesday, we have no choice but to handle the day’s business electronically.  First, let me sketch out how the evening’s class was intended to proceed.  Each of you would pass one copy of your proposal to your left so that you would have an opportunity to read another person’s proposal.  After a few minutes I would ask each of you to comment on the other person’s provisional title and abstract and perhaps ask questions of that person.  Then the group would discuss the proposal and I would offer some suggestions.  This portion of class would last about an hour.  In the remaining time, we would discuss your approach to finding and using secondary sources and how to think about framing your research historiographically.  For next week, I would ask you to read and be prepared to comment on the other person’s selected primary source.  I would read your other copy of the proposal and offer you any additional comments via email by later in the week.

Since we cannot meet, I would like for each of you to email me your proposal (with or without your primary source, depending on whether you are able to scan it).  I will read it and also forward it to another of your classmates, copying your email (to confirm my receipt of it).  When you receive the other person’s proposal, I would ask that you read it with a critical eye and offer your thoughts/suggestions in an email to that person, copying me.  I will in turn offer any comments I have via email later in the week.  Again, to summarize:

1. Email your proposal to me.
2. When you receive a proposal, read it.
3. Email its author, copying me, with your thoughts/suggestions.
4. Look for an email from me later in the week with my evaluation of your proposal.

Next, I’d like to summarize some of the thoughts I have on secondary sources that we discussed in Monday’s meeting.  Even if you have already located what seems to be a sufficient number of secondary sources for your topic, keep looking.  You can’t over-research historiography, and the more context you can find, the better.

WorldCat: I recommend consulting WorldCat (via the CSU library website’s Research Databases link) to do a range of keyword searches.  I tend to limit my searches to books that are in 50 or more libraries.  This eliminates what are usually less useful non-book sources (WorldCat is not the place to find scholarly articles despite the fact that it supposedly searches for articles too), and it focuses your attention on books that have been widely adopted by libraries.  I have found that books that are in 100-1000 libraries tend to be the most useful.  Few books that are not very broad in their conception attain 1000+ library adoptions, and most books that make a significant contribution to their field are housed in 100+ libraries (unless they are very new and not yet adopted).  It should go without saying that you should focus primarily if not exclusively on books published by university presses.  Of course, there are exceptions to most rules, and particularly distinguished scholars sometimes publish with major publishing houses such as Knopf, Simon & Schuster, Basic Books, Free Press, etc.  When in doubt, it is usually possible to “Google” an author to see if he/she is a scholar.

Dissertation Abstracts: Also available on the CSU library website, this database is a good place to search to see what unpublished Ph.D. dissertations may exist on your subject.  As with WorldCat, be sure you try different combinations of search terms for best results.

JSTOR vs. Journal Finder: Most of you have probably used JSTOR to find scholarly journal articles.  While I recommend focusing most of your energies on books, which tend to define/shape their respective fields more than journal articles, you would be remiss if you neglected to search articles as well.  JSTOR searches a couple hundred history journals (not to mention other disciplines’ journals) up to about three years ago.  It is a great way to search across the leading journals in a single place.  You should think of which journals (major and minor) might have material on your subject and search them individually in Journal Finder (another link on the CSU library website).  That will enable you to see recent articles as well as articles in journals not covered in JSTOR.  While you might not expect to find influential scholarship in a smaller journal, you might still find articles that are useful for content at the least.

Review Essays: Be careful when using review essays to evaluate secondary sources.  Shorter book reviews are particularly uneven in quality, and you might be shocked to see the incredible variation in their usefulness.  Longer (often comparative) book review essays such as those typically featured in Reviews in American History (and sometimes in more tightly focused journals) tend to be more illuminating, but still they are never a substitute for looking at a book itself–only a tool to help you determine whether you might need to consult a book.

Using Secondary Sources. Secondary sources can be useful on different levels.  On one level they are a great source of content that can provide details.  It is expected that you will make use of them in this way but ONLY in this way.  It is critical that you read them for an understanding of the state of the field related to your research.  How have debates in your area of interest evolved over time?  What are the key works that shaped this debate?  Your task is to understand how your own research relates to what has already been done.  Are you filling a major (or minor) gap in existing scholarship?  Such a contribution might involve exploring a theme or topic that has been missing; focusing on a time period that has been neglected for a topic; examining the topic in a geographical location previously unexamined or understudied; or perhaps something else.  Or, are you challenging existing scholarship?  This scenario is always possible, but I would think it is unlikely given that you will only spend about three months on this research and are thus not likely to be in a position to overturn scholarship that took years to produce.  My advice is to tread lightly if you challenge earlier findings, qualifying your charges with words like “suggests” that allow for the possibility that such conclusions may not be as concrete with shorter-term research as their basis.  Finally, are you simply providing new evidence in support of existing scholarship?  This scenario could overlap with one above, that of filling a geographical gap.  Perhaps scholars have examined a topic in a dozen different cities but not in Cleveland.  That would make your research meaningful even if you come to the same broader conclusions as others before you.  Remember that not all significant scholarship breaks entirely new ground.  In fact, much scholarship involves incremental advances in knowledge.  Comparatively few works will produce a new paradigm.